Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
I respectfully disagree. The legal thread for our entire standards
process hangs on the Board motions that approved 2026 etc.
I don't agree with this assessment. IETF's legitimacy as a standards
body depends on people both inside and outside the IETF recognizing
and implementing its standards, not on whether ISOC ratifies
the process or not.
Having
sweated hard as ISOC Chair to get the last major updates to the
by-laws through, I don't think it's reasonable to ask them for
a by-law about this - at least not as a prerequisite for the
kickoff. I will trust a Board motion.
Maybe it's just that I'm a security guy, but the word "trust" here
makes me very uncomfortable. We're setting up a situation in which the
IETF's ability to operate is completely conditional on ISOC behaving
in the way indicated in the BCP. Given that, I think it's quite
appropriate to have ISOC constrained to behave substantially in that
fashion. Sure, changing your bylaws is hard, but that's precisely why
a bylaw change and not just a board motion is what we need.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf